ASVMEB Order 22094 MELANIE RETTLER, DVM

BEFORE THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL
EXAMINING BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF: Case Nos.: 21-96 & 22-94

Melanie Rettler, DVM
Holder of License No. 2059

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT'S
MOTION FOR REHEARING OR REVIEW

For the practice of Veterinary

)
)
)
)
)
Medicine in the State of Arizona, )
)
)

Respondent.

BACKGROUND

At its meeting on August 17, 2022, the Arizona State Veterinary Medical
Examining Board (“Board”) considered Melanie Rettler's, DVM ("Respondent")
Motion for Rehearing or Review ("Motion") of the Board's Order dated June 28,
2022, in the above referenced matter. Respondent was present telephonically.
After due consideration of Respondent's arguments and the administrative
record, the Board moved to deny her Motion for the reasons stated during its
deliberations, specifically that she failed to demonstrate that she was entitled

to a rehearing or review for any of the reasons set forth in A.A.C. R3-11-904(C).

ORDER
IT 1S HEREBY ORDERED:
Respondent's Motion for a Rehearing or Review is DENIED. The Order in
Case Nos. 21-96 & 22-94 dated June 28, 2022, constitutes the Board's final
administrative order which now becomes effective upon the mailing of this

Order Denying Motion for Rehearing or Review.

21-96 & 22-94 Melanie Reitler, DVM

RIGHT TO APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT

Respondent is hereby notified that the Order is the final administrative
decision of the Board and that Respondent has exhausted her administrative
remedies. Respondent is advised that an appeal to Superior Court in Maricopa
County may be taken from this decision pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2234(I} and Title
12, Chapter 7, article 6 of Arizona Revised Statutes, within 35 days from the date
this decision is served.

ISSUED this Lacy of August 2022 at Phoenix, Arizona

Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining
Board

Victoria Whitmore, Exécutive Director

Original of the foregoing filed this 2%” day of eget , 2022

with the:

Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board
1740 W. Adams Street, Ste. 4600
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

this 22” day of , 2022 to:

Melanie Retiler, DVM
Address on file
Respondent

Copy of ihe oe sent by certified, return receipt mail

Copy oe the foregoing sent by U.S. mail
this_ 29" day of ee 2022 to:

Melanie Retiler, DVM

21-96 & 22-94 Melanie Rettler, DVM

No

24

25

Address on file
Respondent

Copy of the foregoing sent by email

this 297 day of Guguat- 2022 to:

Melanie Rettler, DVM
Email address on file
Respondent

Board Staff

21-96 & 22-94 Melanie Rettler, DVM

w

RECEIVED
JUL 2 9 2022

Melanie Rettler Initial: —
20134 E. Ryan Road

Queen Creek, AZ 85142-9774

480-296-9320

melanie.rettler@gmail.com

Respondent
BEFORE THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL
EXAMINING BOARD
IN THE MATTER OF: Case No.: 21-96 AND22-94
MELANIE RETTLER DVM PETITION FOR REHEARING AND
HOLDR OF LICENSE No.2059 REVIEW OF ARIZONA
PTR GN
FOR THE PRACTICE OF VETERINARY FINDINGS OF
MEDICINE IN THE STATE OF oe
ARIZONA
RESPONDENT.

I. IRREGULARITY IN PROCEEDING OF BOARD — ABUSE OF

DISCRETION
Dr. Melaine Retter renewed her veterinary license on-line January 2021. She attempted to
renew her premise license but the system did not allow it. She contacted Victoria Whitmore at
the Arizona Veterinary Board. Victoria was puzzled as to why the license was not renewable

on-line and did some research. She indicated to Dr. Rettler that the premise license was not

renewed or paid for the previous cycle. This came as a surprise to Dr.Rettler as she had
renewed both her veterinary and premise licenses every cycle since she originally obtained
them in 1991 (30 years). Victoria assisted Dr. Rettler to renew the premise license by mail.
Victoria then opened a case against Dr. Rettler. At the informal hearing, Dr. Retter explained
that she remembered leaving the Queen Creek library to go the post office with both her
veterinary license renewal and premise license renewal in her hand and that they were
different colored paper. She also told the Board that she never intended not to renew both
licenses. She told the Board if she had known the license was missing, she would have
corrected the issue promptly. She also told the Board she would pay the late fee. After the
Board issued their excessive punishment, Dr.Rettler told them to “Fuck Off’ or something
similar. She stated that she was not going to pay a $1000,00 fine AND complete 6 hours
Continuing Education for an unintentional mistake that just as likely could have been the
Board’s mistake. Each of these punishments and “probation” are excessive in and of
themselves. There is a woman on the Board and she tried to fine Dr. Rettler $2,000 until she
learned the limit was $1,000. The Board never established that Dr.Rettler was required to
have a premise license during the period in question. Dr. Rettler’s private practice was
almost non-existent from 2013 to 2021. She was severely injured in two automobile accidents
2013 and 2014. She performed substitute work as the Track Veterinarian at Turf Paradise
Race Track during this period and that work was under another veterinarian’s premise

license.

Il. EXCESSIVE PENALTIES

Dr.Rettler renewed both her veterinary and premise licenses every cycle since she
originally obtained them in 1991 (30 years). An unintentional mistake, if it was Dr. Rettler’s
error, to be late in renewing her premise license does not warrant a punishment of a | year
suspension, $1000.00 fine and 6 hours Continuing Education.

After the Board issued their excessive punishment, Dr.Rettler told them to “Fuck Off” or
something similar. She stated that she was not going to pay a $1000,00 fine AND complete 6
hours Continuing Education for an unintentional mistake that just as likely could have been
the Board’s mistake. Each of these punishments and “probation” are excessive in and of
themselves. There is a woman on the Board and she tried to fine Dr. Rettler $2,000 until she
learned the limit was $1,000. Certainly, revoking Dr. Rettler’s veterinary license because she
won’t bow down to the Board who thinks they are “god” and perform/pay the ridiculous
excessive original penalty is even more absurd and an abuse of a power I don’t agree that
they Constitutionally have. But if they have it, they abused it. If Dr.Rettler’s premise license
renewal was late, the appropriate recourse would have been to charge a late fee which
Dr.Rettler stated she would have paid. The second case, unprofessional conduct, would never

have arisen.

Iii, NEWLY DISCOVERED MATERIAL EVIDENCE INSUPPORT OF
DUE PROCESS VIOLATION
At the hearing Dr. Rettler participated in telephonically, she told the Board that she did

not receive the certified letter and was not given the 30 day notice required by law. A Board
member stated that they received a notice with initials on it claiming the certified letter, Dr.
Rettler told them that was not her nor anyone she knew. They mentioned the two initials on
the letter. Dr.Rettler did not recognize those as anyone she knew. Dr. Rettler was surprised to
learn that a certified letter had been signed for and she did not receive adequate notice to have
time to prepare a response. The Queen Creek post office requires an ID and verifies the name
and address before handing out a certified letter. Typically, a certified letter is returned to the
sender if it is not claimed. The material fact that the notice the Board received back from the
post office not only did not have Dr. Rettler’s signature but had a stranger’s initials is proof
that someone else signed for and received the certified mail that was intended for Dr.Rettler,
This same person likely received the mailed copy of the letter as they had to have received a
notice for the certified letter. This information was newly discovered at the hearing and the

lack of a 30 day notification violated the law.

IV. THE FINDINGS OF FACT OR AND DECISION IS NOT

SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND IS CONTRARY TO LAW

Dr. Melaine Retter renewed her veterinary licenses together every renewal cycle for 30
years. Her premise license was current at the time the case was brought against her and it was
a surprise to her that her premise license was not current when she tried to renew on-line after
having successfully renewed her veterinary license. Failing to pay for a premise license, if
that is what occurred is not practicing without a license. One has to be practicing veterinary
medicine to be practicing without a license and the Board did not determine Dr.Rettler had

been practicing during the time the premise license supposedly lapsed.

V. THE FINDINGS OF FACT OR AND DECISION IS NOT SUPPORTED
BY THE EVIDENCE AND IS CONTRARY TO LAW
Dr. Rettler incorporates all previous paragraphs by reference. It was an inaccurate finding
of fact to determine that Dr.Rettler was properly served with notice on the first case. It was an
inaccurate finding of fact to determine that Dr.Rettler performed veterinary medicine without
a license. The Board did not determine that status of Dr-Rettler’s practice and did not

determine that she was required to have a premise license for the period in question.

VI. DECISION CONTRARY TO LAW
The Board lacks authority to engage in any licensing activity. They are in violation of the
ORIGINAL 13" Amendment to the US Constitution which was ratified in 1819. The Title of
Nobilities Act has never been repealed nor lawfully nullified and IS current Supreme Law of
the land as part of the US. Constitution. The intent of this Original 13'" Amendment is to
guarantee political equality among all American citizens, by prohibiting anyone, even
government officials, from exercising or claiming any special privilege or power (an “honor”)
over other citizens, The Board has no specific “immunity” from lawsuits which are not
afforded to all citizens. The Arizona Veterinary Board “attempts” to weld authority that they
do not have. Occupational licensing elevates certain citizens above others. It is a barrier to
many to enter employment in their desired field of expertise. The Board cannot sell licenses
and they each lack immunity for their actions.
The Original 13" Amendment also prohibits all lawyers from holding any public office.
The Veterinary Practice Act was drawn up by attorneys. It is void.
VI. DECISION CONTRARY TO LAW
The Arizona Veterinary Board members have violated the Original 14" Amendment,
Current 13th Amendment, Slavery or Involuntary Servitude by supporting licensing
requirements that enslave licensees. Victoria Whitmore stated that the Board provides a
service to the public. This “service” that the Board sells is required off the backs of

licensees by a threat of loss of their livelihood and at no compensation to the licensee.

One example is the “service” the Board requires of a veterinarian is that if a veterinarian
had an answering machine, the veterinarian must provide a message that tells the caller
where the nearest Emergency Clinic is located. A phone service that will handle that
demand costs additional money. Many clients do not want to listen to the “advertisement”
for a facility that they already have had a bad experience with. The Board demands a
licensee spend their time and money to provide the Board with a “service” that they are
taking credit for. Victoria wanted to do an inspection of my “premise” in the middle of the
summer 2021, My premise is my vehicle and it was 115-116 degrees outside. I asked her
if | was being paid for my time. She laughed and told me “NO”. I am NOT laughing. In
fact, I am working with the Institute for Justice on the wording for an initiative that I will
put on the 2024 ballot to change the Arizona Constitution to eliminate all occupational
licenses, The time is ripe for the passage of such a proposition with all the Medical Board

abuses of doctors. This proposition will pass. You can thank Victoria.

VII. CONCLUSION
Because the Board abused its discretion, violated the law and failed to follow proper due

process procedures, Dr. Rettler should be granted her petition for a rehearing and review of

the Arizona Veterinary Medical Examing Board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law and

order.

DATED this 27th day of July 2022

Melanie Rettler, DVM

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 27, 2022, I filed the foregoing document with the Board’s
Executive Director by Certified mail and U.S. mailed a copy this same date to the following:
ORIGINAL of the foregoing
mailed this 27" day of July 2022, to:
Arizona State Veterinary Medical
Examining Board
1740 W. Adams St. Ste. 4600
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

A copy was emailed to Victoria. whitmore@vetboard.az.gov July 27,2022

By:__/s/ Melanie Rettler

BEFORE THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL.
EXAMINING BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: CASE NO.: 21-96 AND 22-94.

MELANIE RETTLER DVM FINDINGS OF FACT,

HOLDER OF LICENSE No. 2059 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ORDER

FOR THE PRACTICE OF VETERINARY

MEDICINE IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA,

RESPONDENT.

weve Ve Yee VY VV

On May 18, 2022, the Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board
(“Board”) conducted a Formal Hearing regarding Melanie Rettler, DVM
(“Respondent”) at 1740 West Adams Street, Board Room B, Phoenix, Arizona.
The proceedings in this matter are governed by A.R.S. § 32-2234(A). Marc
Harris, Assistant Attorney General, appeared on behalf of the State.

On or about April 12, 2022, the Board issued a Complaint and Notice of
Hearing ("Notice"), which was mailed, via certified and first class mail, to
Respondent's address of record, as well as e-mailed on April 13, 2022 to
Respondent's e-mail address of record. In the Notice, Respondent was also
advised of her right to legal counsel.

The Board delayed the start of the Formal Hearing for Respondent's
appearance, however, Respondent did not appear at the hearing, either
personally or through an attorney, and did not contact the Board to request a
continuance or to appear telephonically.

The Board admitted State’s Exhibits 1 — 10 into evidence, took testimony from

Ms. Victoria Whitmore, Executive Director of the Arizona State Veterinary

21-96 and 22-94, Melanie Rettler, DVM

b

24

25

Medical Examining Board, and proceeded as is permitted by A.R.S. §§ 32-
2234(A} and 41-1092 et seq.

Following the Formal Hearing and the Board's discussion of the evidence,
the Board determined that Respondent's conduct constituted unprofessional
conduct pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2232(18}. After considering all of the evidence

and testimony, the Board issues the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of

Law and Order, ("Order").
FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the holder of License No. 2059 issued on June 19, 1991,
and is therefore authorized to practice the profession of veterinary medicine in
the State of Arizona.

2. On August 18, 2021, the Board conducted an Informal Interview in Cas
No. 21-96. Respondent was present and participated in the Informal Interview]
Following the Informal Interview and after due consideration of all the evidenc
and the law, the Board issued Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and an Orde
for Probation for a one year period. (“Board Order”).

3. The Board Order was issued on September 28, 2021, which ool
effective on November 2, 2021.

4, Pursuant to the Board Order, Respondent was required to complete si
hours of continuing education within one year. Respondent was also required
to provide “a written outline stating how she plans to satisfy the continuing
education requirements” within 60 days of the effective date of the Board
Order. Respondent's continuing education plan (“CE Plan”) was due on
January 3, 2022.

§. On January 26, 2022, the Board staff e-mailed Respondent regarding

her CE Plan and requested an update.

21-96 and 22-94, Melanie Rettler, DVM

N

6. On February 6, 2022, Respondent sent her reply. In it she expressed he
views on the Board Order and that she felt the Board lacked jurisdiction over he’
as a licensed veterinarian.

7. The Board considered Respondent's failure to comply with the Board
Order at its meeting on February 16, 2022. Respondent was noticed but did no
attend the meeting. After due consideration of the matter, including
Respondent's February 6, 2022 e-mail, the Board voted to open a ne
complaint based upon her failure to comply with a Board Order and remanded

the matter to Formal Hearing. The non-compliance case was assigned Case

No. 22-94.

8. Thereafter, the Board notified Respondent of its action. On March 9
2022, she sent the Board a letter wherein she reiterated her intention not to
comply with the Board Order.

9. To date, Respondent has not submitted her CE Plan in violation of the}
Board's Order.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

10. The conduct and circumstances as described above constitute
UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-2232(18) violating of
attempting to violate, directly or indirectly, or assisting or abetting the violation
or conspiracy to violate any of the provisions of this chapter, a rule adopted b

the Board or a written order of the Board.

ORDER

11. Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it

is ORDERED that Respondent's License, No. 2059 is REVOKED.

21-96 and 22-94, Melanie Rettler, DVM

w

24

25

RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REHEARING OR REVIEW

Respondent is hereby notified that she has the right to petition for a
rehearing or review. The petition for rehearing or review must be filed with the
Board's Executive Director within thirty (30) days after service of this Order.
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(B). The petition for rehearing or review must set forth legally
sufficient reasons for granting a rehearing or review. A.A.C. R3-11-904(C).
Service of this order is effective five (5) days after date of mailing. A.R.S. § 41-
1092.09(C). If a petition for rehearing or review is not filed, the Board’s Order
becomes effective thirty-five (35) days after if is mailed to Respondent.

Respondent is further notified that the filing of a motion for rehearing or

review is required to preserve any rights of appeal to the Superior Court.

Dated this_ 2%" day of Sune 2022.

Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board
Jim Loughead
Chairman

Whitmore, Executive Director

Original of the foregoing filed this ar day of Gps, 2022
with the:

Arizona State Veterinary
Medical Examining Board
1740 W. Adams St., Ste. 4600
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Copy of the foregoing sent by certified, return receipt mail
this 287 dayof Gun» 2022, to:

21-96 and 22-94, Melanie Rettier, DVM

o

Melanie Retiler, DVM
Address on file
Respondent

Copy of the foregoing sent by email
this 28” day of Guns , 2022, to:

Melanie Rettler, DVM
E-mail Address on file
Respondent

By: oe ate

Board Staff

21-96 and 22-94, Melanie Rettler, DVM

wo

BEFORE THE ARIZONA STATE VETERINARY MEDICAL.
EXAMINING BOARD

IN THE MATTER OF: CASE No.: 21-96

MELANIE RETTLER DVM FINDINGS OF FACT,
HOLDER OF LICENSE No. 2059 CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
AND ORDER

FOR THE PRACTICE OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE IN THE STATE OF ARIZONA,

RESPONDENT.

wee ewe Yee www

The Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board (“Board")
considered this matter at its public meetings on August 18, 2021 and September
15, 2021. Melanie Rettler, DVM (“Respondent”) appeared before the Board for
an Informal Interview on August 18, 2021. The Informal Interview was conducted
in accordance with A.R.S. § 32-2234(A}. As part of the Informal Interview, the
Board reviewed all of the documents submitted regarding this matter and took
testimony from Respondent.

Following the Informal Interview and after due consideration of the
evidence, the arguments and the law, the Board voted to issue the following

Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order (“Order”).

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Respondent is the holder of License No. 2059 issued on June 19, 1991, and
is therefore authorized to practice the profession of veterinary medicine in the
State of Arizona.
2. On February 7, 2017, Respondent was sent a letter notifying her that her

premises license for “Healthy Pet,” Premises License No. P0668, had expired on

21-96, Melanie Rettler, DVM

a

December 31, 2016. On March 3, 2017, Respondent renewed her premises
icense more than a month after the February 1, 2017 date when late fees were
initiated,

3. During the following license renewal cycle, on December 31, 2018,

Respondent's premises license expired. She was sent a letter on February 12,
2019 notifying her that the premises license had expired and action needed to
be taken to renew if she was going to continue to provide veterinary services
from the premises.

4. On January 31, 2021, Respondent contacted the agency stating that she
had attempted to renew the premises license online but could not find a form
to print. Respondent was advised that her premises license had expired on
December 31, 2018 at the previous renewal cycle.

5. Respondent stated that she was sure she sent in the premises renewal with
her veterinarian renewal as she always submits them together. Director
Whitmore verified that the agency had received Respondent's veterinarian
license renewal payment on February 29, 2019 without the veterinary renewal
application form. Board staff emailed the veterinary renewal application form
fo Respondent that same day. Respondent did not mention the premises
license renewal. Respondent was unable to locate the cancelled check that
would indicate she had submitted and paid for her premises license renewal
which had an expiration date of December 31, 2018.

6. On February 17, 2021, the Board voted to open an investigation. due to
Respondent continuing to provide veterinary services through her lapsed

premises license.

21-96, Melanie Rettler, DVM

nN

7. On February 23, 2021, Respondent was sent a notice of the investigation

asking her to respond.

8. On February 26, 2021, Respondent renewed her premises license. No fees
were necessary to renew for the 2021-2022 cycle because the Board had
waived all license renewal fees via the authority of a Governor's Executive
Order.

9. On March 10, 2021, Respondent responded to the open investigation.
Respondent stated that until she attempted to renew her premises license
online in January 2021 and spoke with Ms. Whitmore, she did not know that her
premises license had expired.

10. Respondent thought she had mailed the premises renewal application
with fee to the Board office in January 2019. She stated that she may have
mailed it to the wrong address, or misplaced the document and not mailed it.
Respondent relayed that she was under the impression that her premises
license was valid and current,

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

11. The Findings of Fact constitute administrative violation of A.R.S. § 32-2274
(A)(9) for failure to maintain a premises license for two years; 2019 - 2020.
Respondent continued to provide veterinary medical services to the public
without a premises license after it had lapsed on February 1, 2019 (expiration
date December 31, 2018).

ORDER

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is
ORDERED that Respondent's License, No. 2059 be placed on PROBATION for a

period of one year, subject to the following terms and conditions:

21-96, Melanie Rettler, DVM

w

24

25

Continuing Education

]. In addition to the continuing education (CE) requirements of A.A.C. R3-11-
AO1{A), within 12 months of the effective date of this Order, Respondent shall
complete three (3} hours of continuing education in the area of veterinary
medical ethics and three (3) hours of continuing education by completing the
RACE-approved “Regulation of the Profession” course or an equivalent course.
All required continuing education shall be pre-approved by the Board.
Respondent shall submit to the Board for its approval within sixty (60) days of the
effective date of this Order a written outline stating how she plans to satisfy the
continuing education requirements The outline shall include course details
including, title, provider, date(s), hours of CE to be earned, and a brief course
summary.

2. Upon completion, Respondent shall submit to the Board a certificate o
completion of the required continuing education prior to the end of th
Probation period.

Civil Penalty

3. Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of one thousand dollars ($1,000); this
includes three hundred dollars ($300) for the unpaid 2018 premises license
renewal and late penalty fee plus a seven hundred dollar ($700) penalty. The
civil penalty totaling one thousand ($1,000) is to be paid on or before the end
of the Probation period. Civil penalty is to be paid by certified check, cashier's
check or money order made payable to the Arizona State Veterinary Medical
Examining Board.

General Provisions

21-96, Melanie Rettler, DVM

oe

4, Respondent shall obey all federal, state and local laws/rules governing
the practice of veterinary medicine in this state.

5. Respondent shall bear all costs of complying with this Order.

6. This Order is conclusive evidence of the matters described and may be
considered by the Board in determining an appropriate sanction in the event a
subsequent violation occurs. In the event Respondent violates any term of this
Order, the Board may, after opportunity for Informal Interview or Formal
Hearing, take any other appropriate disciplinary action authorized by law,

including suspension or revocation of Respondent's license.

RIGHT TO PETITION FOR REHEARING OR REVIEW

Respondent is hereby notified that she has the right to petition for a
rehearing or review. The petition for rehearing or review must be filed with the
Board’s Executive Director within thirty (30) days after service of this Order.
A.R.S. § 41-1092.09(B). The petition for rehearing or review must set forth legally
sufficient reasons for granting a rehearing or review. A.A.C. R3-11-904(C).
Service of this order is effective five (5) days after date of mailing. A.R.S. § 41-
1092.09(C). If a petition for rehearing or review is not filed, the Board’s Order
becomes effective thirty-five (35) days after it is mailed to Respondent.

Respondent is further notified that the filing of a motion for rehearing or

review is required to preserve any rights of appeal to the Superior Court.

Dated this 28" day of Arptimbse, 2021.

Arizona State Veterinary Medical Examining Board
Jim Loughead
Chairman

21-96, Melanie Rettler, DVM

wa

24

25

VictoriG Whitmore, Executive Director

Original of the foregoing filed this 2¢t day of deatmbex, 2021
with the:

Arizona State Veterinary
Medical Examining Board
1740 W. Adams St., Ste. 4600
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

Copy of ihe foregoing sent by certified, return receipt mail
this_ 23" day of bd ple tb 7s 2021 to:

Melanie Rettler, DVM
Address on file
Respondent

Copy of the foregoing sent by email

this 28 day of Lptmde _, 2021 to:

Melanie Rettler, DVM
E-mail Address on file
Respondent

By: CA

Board Staff

21-96, Melanie Retiler, DVM

a